Unworthy victims

26Oct07

Here’s a short experiment: ask people you know (or those you don’t, ‘though they might think you a bit strange) whether they’ve heard about the recent, inspiring rebellion of the monks in Burma.

Then ask them if they’ve heard about the equally inspiring wave of workers’ strikes, sit-ins and walk-outs in Egypt.

That’s the propaganda model at work.

Hint: according to Lexis Nexis, neither the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, the Daily/Sunday Telegraph, The Independent/Independent on Sunday, the Observer or the Guardian have mentioned the recent historic victory of the 24,000 workers of the Ghazl al-Mahalla textile plant north of Cairo even once.(The AP have run two articles – one of which seems to have disappeared – on the topic.)

Mubarak is a Western client, and the striking workers are largely leftists and socialists, so that would never do.

I emailed most of the newspapers mentioned above to ask if they could point me to their coverage of the Egyptian strike wave, or else if they could explain why they had failed to report on it. Cameron Barr, Middle East editor for the Washington Post responded:

“thank you for your note. the story below mentions the strikes toward the end — it’s not much, but it’s something. i’ll look at the link you sent.

all best,

cameron barr”

The story he included was this one – an article about the state’s repression of the Muslim Brotherhood, which makes a passing reference to “the biggest wave of strikes in Egypt in a half-century” near the bottom. That, it appears, represents the full extent of the paper’s coverage of the unprecedented strike-wave.

Hossam el-Hamalawy is an excellent source for updates on the on-going labour struggle in Egypt, as is LibCom.

See also these two excellent articles (here and here) in MERIP, by Joel Beinin and Hossam el-Hamalawy.


Filed under: Activism, Media   |  7 Comments
Tags: , , ,

7 Responses to “Unworthy victims”  

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  1. 1 dksu on October 27, 2007 said:

    It’s great that you’ve posted on this. It’s a struggle that’s been largely ignored in the Western press, for obvious reasons. El-Hamalawy’s blog has been absolutely incredible at covering the recent actions of Egyptian labour.

  2. 2 JamieSW on October 27, 2007 said:

    Yeh, 3arabawy is an excellent source for news on this – el-Hamalawy is an activist and journalist himself, so he’s got the contacts to update us about the latest developments.

    From what I could see of Western press coverage, the bulk of the strike movement has simply been ignored (the Mahalla victory, for example, simply does not exist for readers of the major American and British newspapers). There have been reports on a few specific events however, for example the recent strike of media workers. That seemed to catch the press’ attention a bit more, ‘though I’m sure it’s gone again now.

  3. 3 matttbastard on October 28, 2007 said:

    Thank you for the pointer (and the vivid illustration of the Model in action). It should also be noted that Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy are Neoliberal to the core–another freetrade client state in waiting, once the junta goes the way of the buffalo.

  4. 4 dksu on October 28, 2007 said:

    Yeah, I’ve heard something like this too, mattbastard. Do you have any links?

  5. 5 matttbastard on October 29, 2007 said:

    From Lenin’s Tomb:

    There has been a popular movement against the ruling State Law and Order Council for years, obviously, and this is part of a real revolt. The monks are an important and esteemed segment of society because they provide education and social services, whereas the dictatorship simply exploits people. So why should it be that the United States government has, for the last few years, been applying sanctions to Burma along with its allies? Why is it championing the main democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi? Only an ostrich would imagine it has anything to do with democracy. Well, it’s the same as East Timor in many ways. The West, after having backed a genocidal regime for years, has terrorised the opposition into accepting a neoliberal programme. Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy has promised that, upon taking power, it will implement structural adjustments opening up huge parts of the economy to international investors. There is more than a parallel there: Suharto was one of the Burmese junta’s closest allies before an uprising threw him off, and a polyarchical neoliberal regime in both states will restore the symmetry to some extent. So, it’s another phase in the transition from anti-socialist dictatorships used by Washington to slightly less coercive regimes in which the opposition has basically been neutered. The experiment launched in Chile in 1973 was really that successful.

    Also, this 1999 speech by Suu Kyi, though subtle, seems to indicates where she and her gov’t will be looking to receive (financial) assistance from if/when her the NLD takes power in Burma:

    We must all lay this foundation correctly. Then we must build that house with a continuous flow of material which involves many many things. As I have stated earlier, we will need money. Without money, materials can not be purchased. We need to be able to evaluate the goods. Having money only will not do. We need to know their value.

    Therefore knowledge of such things is essential. We must have friends who can advise us about these values. We can not be isolated and stand alone in this world. We need good friends. Even with good friends, money, human and material resources and knowledge, this generation can not erect and complete this building.

    [...]

    Don’t depend on assistance (without strings attached) from here to there. There is no such thing as “without strings attached”. Strings get attached automatically. We, believers in Buddhism, know well all about this. Every circumstance has a reason and an effect and one’s deed predetermines one’s future.

    Suu Kyi has also made clear in previous dispatches that the country will transition from dictatorship to “liberal democracy;” judging by those who support her and the NDL (eg, Gordon Brown, Madeline Albright, George H.W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher, etc etc), it’s easy for one to conclude that an NLD gov’t won’t hesitate to embrace structural adjustment, strings and all.

    This is not to suggest that the ruling junta is legit, or that the popular struggle in Burma doesn’t deserve solidarity; far from it. However, it should give one pause when those who are quick to jettison the democratic process when results prove strategically inconvenient (eg, Hamas’ victory in Palestine) are so keen to legitimate the will of the people in other cases.

  6. 6 dksu on October 29, 2007 said:

    Thanks, I’ve read the Tomb post before, but the speech is new to me. Sounds like it might not exactly be smooth sailing ;/.


  1. 1 bastard.logic

Leave a Reply